dbgprobe.svd.update_fields

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the read-modify-write pattern but does not disclose error handling, validation of field names, or side effects on other fields. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: first explains purpose and action, second clarifies input format. No redundant text, front-loaded with key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should include return value or error conditions. It covers the core operation but omits session_id usage and response format, leaving gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters described). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, with both mentioning the dict structure and value types. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already defines the parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses specific verbs ('batch read-modify-write') and describes the resource ('multiple fields in one register'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_field' which updates a single field.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for efficient multi-field updates with 'single read and write', but does not explicitly state alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context from sibling tools suggests it is preferable over multiple 'set_field' calls.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.